by Guest » Thu May 15, 2008 04:49 am
Hi!
I am hoping someone can help me on this!
I was involved in an accident on Dec. 1 07. I was rearended by a Hummer going approx 45 mph. My minivan had approx 11,500 in damage (it is a custom 07 Sienna) and I had a rental car for 12 weeks. After the accident, I had to take my 4 kids (ages 6,4, 2, 6 mths) to the er and then one to the pediatrician 4 days later. Two were treated with whiplash and had chiro for about 5 months. Medical bills totaled 2950. Lost wages to take the kids were approx 680, diminished value on my vehicle is about 4K. They also didn't pay the car rental bill for 6 weeks and it was charged to me so I paid an over the limit fee and lost my 0% promotional rate due to default (even though the charge has been reversed.) The insurance company offered me an accident settlement of 2,150 and then they were going to pay the 1500 of chiro (there is a lein and that is included in the 2950) I told them I was looking for around 16300 (four times medical bills, 4K in diminished value, lost wages and over the limit fee.) Am I asking too much? They told me I was being unreasonable and that Missouri doesn't recognize diminished value. My insurance company says they do. What is a fair accident settlement amount?
I am hoping someone can help me on this!
I was involved in an accident on Dec. 1 07. I was rearended by a Hummer going approx 45 mph. My minivan had approx 11,500 in damage (it is a custom 07 Sienna) and I had a rental car for 12 weeks. After the accident, I had to take my 4 kids (ages 6,4, 2, 6 mths) to the er and then one to the pediatrician 4 days later. Two were treated with whiplash and had chiro for about 5 months. Medical bills totaled 2950. Lost wages to take the kids were approx 680, diminished value on my vehicle is about 4K. They also didn't pay the car rental bill for 6 weeks and it was charged to me so I paid an over the limit fee and lost my 0% promotional rate due to default (even though the charge has been reversed.) The insurance company offered me an accident settlement of 2,150 and then they were going to pay the 1500 of chiro (there is a lein and that is included in the 2950) I told them I was looking for around 16300 (four times medical bills, 4K in diminished value, lost wages and over the limit fee.) Am I asking too much? They told me I was being unreasonable and that Missouri doesn't recognize diminished value. My insurance company says they do. What is a fair accident settlement amount?
Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 05:48 am Post Subject:
We will tell you how to fix cars and you will hold us harmless. If we specify a cheap part, a used part, inferior parts, you can not hold us liable because you have promised to hold us harmless. IF anyone is injured as a result of you fixing cars the way we specify, you the shop have promised to name us on your garagekeepers policy so that we will suffer no financial harm or responsiblity for acts you take at our direction. After all we did not force you to sign this contract.
No, that is a standard indemnification clause that is in every contractor contract. It's nothing new or secretive.No attorney would recommend that any shop owner sign these types of contracts.
Here, again, it's obvious that you don't have a clue about what your saying. Just about _every_ higher tier/contractor/subcontractor agreement has this same wording. It's actually standard and if you'd actually _ask_ an attorney about this, they would tell you this same thing.Trust me... it's actually what _I_ do each and every day.
I guess we are just glossing over the _fact_ that the DRP contract _SPECIFICALY REQUIRES_ the shop to repair the vehicle correctly and if they cannot, to bring this to the attention of the insurance company. I think it bares another mention as it's so crystal clear...
""6.2 Repairs. Contractor will complete all repairs necessary to restore the vehicle to its pre-accident condition in terms of form, fit, finish, appearance, durability, functionality and safety. All such repairs shall be completed in accordance with or shall exceed industry standards then in effect. Contractor will complete all structural and/or safety related repairs in accordance with ICAR standards.
Thanks for posting the link to that DRP contract... it's good to know that Progressive is requiring body shops to repair vehicles correctly and in accordance with ICAR standards (I think you pointed out how important this was in a prior post).
I guess that wraps up yet another rant.
BTW - the Garage Keepers liability policy would not provide coverage to the 3rd party... it would be a General Liability policy.
Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 11:18 am Post Subject:
DRP contracts/agreements: Mike is correct that there are more on my site that may be available in the future but have been de-linked while corporate attorneys are kept at bay. Bad faith and fraud at the corporate level seem to bring out the worst in people. -grin- Besides, there are plaintiffs willing to pay for these things so you'll just have to be patient.
Pay for what? Copies of DRP contract? Are you kidding me? That just absurd....And since you personally are being harassed by corporate attorneys, :roll: ('they' are making you pull the contracts off right?) why not post/scan those letters right into the post, to give yourself some credibility...no, thought not...The whole point was Mike made yet another eronious statement that ALL DRP contract have shop consessions in them...ALL have to give HUGE discounts etc...then apparently didn't have the forethought to read the one he linked WHICH HAS NONE OF THE THINGS HE CLAIMED IN IT! Our point (one of them) was that ALL of these contracts do not...but although he (and you too apparently Mark) have stores of them...no proof...aaaaaagain...In conclusion: I can't for the life of me figure out why Mike waste time here... he is much too valuable to his industry sharing ... with his industry.
I don't understand it either...and you know all I've seen of Mike's contributions to your industry are rants..period...no actual action, now perhaps there is more, please do tell if so...cause all we've seen is rants/complaints/and whining..Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 02:59 pm Post Subject:
I can see where a company would not allow one of their contracts to be posted in public. It does not have to have anything to do with hiding any thing... it just makes good business sense. The publicly posted contract can _only_ be used against them and cannot help the company in any way. So of course they would require that it be removed. If they did not, it could be entered as evidence in court on an unrelated matter (perhaps one that has no merit). This type of thing is done all day and every day. People who understand the situation know that it's simply a good business decision.
Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 06:36 pm Post Subject:
I'll have to concur with Mark Pierson and have chosen to take his advice. It is pointless trying to prove anything to those who refuse to believe anything that is not written on corporate letterheads and have been indoctrinated into insurance propoganda. I'll only respond to concerned posters at this point.
In the meantime you might enjoy this article from attorney Erica Eversman
http://www.bodyshopbusiness.com Article/14902/a_legal_primer.aspx. Scroll down to article on main page. You might want to read the editors remarks for this month too. He has a grasp on the big picture unlike the two of you.
Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 09:19 pm Post Subject:
Instead, the consumer is obligated to pay the repairer for the work performed on the vehicle, and the insurer is obliged to indemnify the consumer or pay for damages caused by its insured.
While this article is certainly on point, it again shows the small picture, not the big picture by any means. Let me put it as simply as I can with an example I used before...A person takes their car into 5 different shops with a repairable dent in the fender. They _are_ going to get 5 different prices. I have no issue with that... it's just a fact. Not let's say they get paid by their insured who gives them an appraisal. If the shop they take the vehicle to chooses to charge more then the person was paid then the person is going to need to pay the difference. The insurance company will tell the person to take the appraisal to many shops in the area and ask if the fender can be repaired for what they are paying and they answer is going to be yes. So who's stuck paying the difference? As it's the person... why as an insurance company would I give one hoot? But as I can show that many shops would have repaired the vehicle for the amount I issued, who do you think the person is going to have a grudge with? Where do you think they are going to take their car to next time? Perhaps a body shop willing to work with the appraisal written up by the insurance company?
The entire paragraph under the "Creation of Status Confusion" heading is pointless and moot. They start off by stating that a 3rd party is only entitled to recover when the sue but they they go on to state that claims are paid anyway and actually, (all) states require an insurance to pay prior to suit.
The insurance company estimate is not a blueprint for repair.
I LOVE that statement and am glad it's highlighted. It's 100% correct! While I seldom have body shops call me about the appraisals I write up (and I'm not that good), they _do_ call. They might want some extra time for this or that. I also know that all other appraisers/adjusters get these calls (every adjuster here had admitted to this). Usually the shop wants some more time for something and we come to an agreement on what needs to be done (personally, 99.999999999 of the time _I_ okay the additional time or parts). I'm not perfect but I also don't expect every shop estimator to be perfect either (I've seen estimates written up to replace items that are not even on the vehicle). Again, _I've_ always said that the insurance company and shop need to work together and everything works smoothly. It's when people don't communicate (as the article suggests) that problems occur.Unless you've agreed to allow insurers into your facility as part of a DRP arrangement, or unless your state law expressly requires it, a collision repairer has no legal obligation to allow an insurer to enter the property or to inspect a vehicle at any point. If a repairer does allow this, he or she is allowing the insurer onto the property or to inspect a vehicle solely as a courtesy to his or her customer. Repairers forgetting this principle and failing to enforce their rights as business owners has led to many of the issues the collision industry currently faces.
That is funny! Truth is, legally the insurance company has a _right_ to inspect the vehicle. So if this ever happened to me, I'd simply tell the person what the shop is doing, tell them that I cannot pay the claim without inspecting the vehicle and either tell them _I'll_ pay to have it towed to a different shop or recommend that they consider taking it to another shop of their choice that will make the process go easier. If the person refuses, then I'll leave it up to them to drag the car out into the street or what ever they need to do and pay for to allow me to inspect it. Again, the body shop would only be making it more difficult for a possible customer.First parties only have a contractual obligation via the insurance policy to allow the insurer to verify that there's a legitimate claim and to allow it to appraise the damage. There's nothing in consumers' automobile insurance policies that gives an insurer the right to “only write what you can see” for the initial estimate, and later return repeatedly to “reinspect” additional damage for a supplement. This practice is detrimental to efficient collision repairs and is not supported by the contractual obligations of insurer and insured under the policy.
I think at this point the author perhaps needed to take a nap as they are _way_ way off! Simply put, everyone has a duty to prove their loss. What a shop writes down on paper is not "reasonable" proof when the vehicle is available for inspection and the insurance company is willing to go out to the vehicle to look at the damage.Obviously the author forgot about the part of the contract that states an insured must cooperate with the insurance companies investigation. Again, it's reasonable that the insured would make their damaged vehicle available for inspection.
For the most part the article is correct but I say it's looking at the situation with blinders on as it leaves out reality. An insurance can, and has every right, to write up the cost of repairs. They only need to show that the vehicle can be repaired for that amount. Just as the body shop can had blinders on, so can the insurance company. But we choose to listen to what the body shops have to say. We take those things into consideration and, I'd say, almost always agree to some extent with these things (obviously I can't speak for all situations nor is the body shop always right). The article really states that the _body shop_ has every right to bury their heads in the sand and that they don't have to communicate with anyone. So frankly, this just paints a bad picture for the body shop.
I'll also give an example to the above... today I get a call from a body shop to let me know that this person's pick up has some home made shelves in he bed. In order to make the repairs they need to remove them (I never looked at the truck, I only re-wrote the body shop estimate i was given... so who missed this?). Shop tells me they are not 100% sure they can remove them without causing damage or they could break them out and rebuild them. I told them I'd pay for whichever plan the owner wanted... I'd rather have him make the decision, not me (this person is not insured with my company). This is an example of the shop communicating with the insurance company. Would it have worked better if they just made the repairs and stuck the owner with the bill so he'd have to fight it out with the insurance company?
I fail to see any _real_ issue with shops working together with insurance companies on the repairs of peoples vehicles.
Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 01:07 am Post Subject:
T, if you would like to read what the attorney and author of that article thought of your analysis and commentary you can visit our board as I had her permission to post her response there.
http://www.prodiscussions.com/cgi-bin/pro_discussions.pl?read=125672
The thread that preceded it is http://www.prodiscussions.com/cgi-bin/pro_discussions.pl?read=125642
Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 03:16 am Post Subject:
Quotes from that response:
The reader says:
No, I did not miss the point but Erica failed to include my _entire_ quote. But she does go on as follows:That is funny! Truth is, legally the insurance company has a _right_ to inspect the vehicle.
This reader clearly missed the point when I said that THE BODY SHOP has no obligation to allow the insurer to inspect the vehicle (unless state law requires it). The INSURED has a contractual obligation to allow his/her insurer to review the damage, but the body shop does not.
Now, practically speaking, if the vehicle has been towed to an independent shop on behalf of an insured, and the insured wishes to have the vehicle inspected there, then the body shop would be foolish not to allow the insurer to come look at the vehicle-as the body shop would be effectively putting the insured in violation of the requirements of the insurance contract, and the vehicle would almost certainly end up being moved and repaired by some other shop. The bottom line, however, is that the insurer has NO RIGHTS to impose anything on the body shop - including a demand to inspect the vehicle.
If I understand this correctly, she points out that the shop does not have to allow the inspection but they might as well as otherwise the vehicle owner will just need to have it moved. Huh, then what is the point of this thought? The "point" is moot then.What I find amusing about this thought process is that this insurer rep. plainly understands that the insured cannot avoid his/her contract obligations to the insurer by allowing the body shop to interfere with his/her insurance policy terms. Yet, insurers routinely cause insureds to breach contract terms they have entered into with others, vehicle leasing companies for example, by insisting a damaged lease car be repaired with aftermarket parts when the lease contract plainly requires the insured to have the vehicle repaired only with new OEM parts.
Yes, I am familiar with my carriers own contract and I abide by it. If the insured agrees to a contract that states parts other then OEM will be used, then they agreed. If this puts them in conflict with some other contract then _they_ have created the situation, not the insurance company. It's that clear and simple. I work for a carrier that does not use AM parts. There are other insurance companies that do this as well. If a person signed a leasing contract stating that OEM parts are required, then that person needs to obtain insurance with a carrier that does this. Otherwise, they will need to pay the difference. Which is another point... I just issue payments, I don't tell someone what parts they have to use. She the carrier know about every contract a person signs prior to issuing them an insurance policy? That is, should the carrier review all the person's prior 3rd party contracts to make sure that there are no conflicts? Yet it's suggested that the insurance company is to blame for putting the person in that situation. That is an absurd statement.Why do insurers fail to accept some level of responsibility for these breaches of contract they cause their insureds to commit when that works to their financial advantage?
Because we are not the person's legal counsel, their agent for 3rd party contracts, or their mother. It's that simple. But Erica goes on to address this...However, when they know (and they always know) that the vehicle is leased, I believe it could be considered bad faith on the part of the insurer to fail to inform the insured that the insured will likely be in breach of the lease contract to repair the vehicle with aftermarket parts -- and that, while the policy may only call for the insurer to pay for the cost of an aftermarket part, the insured should seriously consider paying the difference between the AM and OEM parts and have OEM parts installed to avoid being in breach of the lease contract.
See that agent sitting in front of the person answering any and all questions the person may have? See that _written_ policy given to the insured so that they can review the policy and know for themselves _exactly_ what it covers? So it turns out that the insurance _DOES_ explain this information. Also, do leasing contracts _always_ require OEM parts be used? Does Erica know?As a matter of fact, the body shop's repair cost ABSOLUTELY IS *REASONABLE* PROOF OF LOSS for the insured to submit and be paid for. I have many examples of cases in which courts have said exactly that.
I chose my words carefully when I stated, "when the vehicle is available for inspection". The vehicle owner's body shop becomes an expert for the owner (who's paying their bill? Who are they their to help?). Their single statement is not a matter of proof _when the vehicle damage is still available for inspection. If it is, and it's repaired despite the carriers request for inspection its called Spoliation of Evidence.They sometimes take weeks to reinspect the vehicle and prepare a supplement, and that is clearly not contemplated in the insurance policy the insurer wrote. And it certainly can't impose such an obligation on the body shop, an entity that is not a party to the insurance contract. The insurer's interference with the contract for repair between the body shop and the consumer by demanding the shop hold the vehicle out of repair production or be subject to the insurer refusing to pay for the repair cost exposes the insurer to an action for bad faith by its insured and an action for tortious interference with contract by the body shop.
That is true. While I think a vast majority of re-inspections are done quickly (and many times supplements are minor and don't require re-inspections) this is an area that probably needs to be improved. It's probably one of the reasons why many carriers have so many DRPs. Not the best answer.Maybe the reader should read the terms of the policies sometimes. Take a look at the difference between the bodily injury obligations and the property loss obligations of the insured. The bodily injury sections plainly state that the insured will submit to examinations as many times as the insurer demands.
I've read that portion a few times. Last time I checked, bodily injury did not apply to the insured.The property loss provisions do not.
That is 100% correct. As again, the property damage portion of the policy is liability and does not address the insured's vehicle damage.They only say the insured must make the vehicle available for an (one) inspection.
Not even close. The ISO form states no such thing, I've read hundreds of policies and never seen this mentioned, and it's a question of law about how many times a vehicle can be inspected, not the policy.Insureds ONLY must make their vehicles available for ONE inspection. After that, the insurer is simply out of luck if it did a lousy job of appraising the damage initially and guessing at what the reserve should be. The repairer doesn't answer to the insurer. Insurers need to remember that.
I remember... as mentioned above, I remember that this is 100% incorrect.It seems toward the end Erica got a little confused about 3rd and 1st party coverage. But that is understandable, it's a little confusing. In the beginning she mentioned facts but also stated several times that the points she was making were moot and did not apply in the real world. Still, she was correct in those statements... they just were pointless.
I would certainly agree in that re-inspections can and do slow down the repairs of an insureds vehicle. Keep in mind that this really only applies to insured's vehicles (claimants are being compensated for any delays) and I'd say that while it happens, it should not happen often. I know I'm guilty of it. I'm not perfect and all claims are not handled perfectly every time. I'll make my apologies on a "as needed basis", I won't apologize for being fallible.
Let me end by saying that it's EXTREEMLY rude and UNPROFESIONAL to takes someones writing and quote only a small portion of the entire statement. So little in fact that it changes the meaning of the post completely. To simply take partial statements from my post and represent them as what I said is inexcusable and unprofessional. If your going to do it in the first place w/o asking (the polite thing to do) at least step up and quote the entire post. Feel free to share this with Erica.
Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 10:44 am Post Subject:
I've read that portion a few times. Last time I checked, bodily injury did not apply to the insured.
:lol: :lol: :lol:Let me end by saying that it's EXTREEMLY rude and UNPROFESIONAL to takes someones writing and quote only a small portion of the entire statement. So little in fact that it changes the meaning of the post completely. To simply take partial statements from my post and represent them as what I said is inexcusable and unprofessional.
And may I add EXTREMELY low class... :xJust a couple of quotes DIRECTLY from my current MO policy (first party of course)...
Cost to repair means the amount of money WE determine will be reasonably required to pay for the repair of the vehicle or part. Cost to repair is determined by US.
ANDAllow US to inspect and appraise the damaged vehicle or part BEFORE it is disposed of and before ANY repairs are started
If we elect to pay the cost to repair the item we have the right to determine if replacement parts are needed and replacement parts are used.. You may choose to use other replalcement parts. If you do so, YOU must pay any charges over the cost of repair
Insureds ONLY must make their vehicles available for ONE inspection.
I see no where in the policy where it says this! and further....all losses must be proved including supplements....which I am sure that this part of the policy again covers...Allow US to inspect and appraise the damaged vehicle or part BEFORE it is disposed of and before ANY repairs are started
There are carriers that drag their feet on supps...(I've never worked for one, but I know there are some)...It's really a simple fix...When I worked in the shops and this happened...If it was an agreed supp, that just hadn't been paid, I simply kept the car till it was paid...The owners understood and hounded the feet off the adjuster till it got paid...If it was something that needed a physical reinspect then I stopped working on the car...same thing, I told the owner this they hounded the adjuster till they got there wrote the supp, then we proceeded...It was the rare exception not the rule..In fact most of the trouble came from one adjuster that was an independent...that was just lazy...(I hear he was promoted :roll: )....After that, the insurer is simply out of luck if it did a lousy job of appraising the damage initially and guessing at what the reserve should be.
What in the world does the reserve have to do with it? NOTHING....She obviously doesn't understand how property damage reserves are set, (automated and averaged)..and the fact that they have zero, I mean zero, to do with well ANYTHING...really...all inital reserves are ''guessed'' at...and set as an 'average' but again they have nothing AT ALL to do with the repair estimate.Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 02:49 pm Post Subject:
Let me end by saying that it's EXTREEMLY rude and UNPROFESIONAL to takes someones writing and quote only a small portion of the entire statement. So little in fact that it changes the meaning of the post completely. To simply take partial statements from my post and represent them as what I said is inexcusable and unprofessional. If your going to do it in the first place w/o asking (the polite thing to do) at least step up and quote the entire post. Feel free to share this with Erica.
This seems to be a common established practice in this forum practiced by many! I beliieve one of the pots is calling the kettle black.
Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 03:12 pm Post Subject:
This seems to be a common established practice in this forum practiced by many! I beliieve one of the pots is calling the kettle black.
Nope. I did not copy your posts and send them to someone else who then took little parts and pieces and posted them on another website. Basically disiminating a post into another format. Or in otherwords, changed for use in propaganda.I only responded to a post in the same forum. You posted the link _here_ and I responded _here_. I did not initiate the "sharing" of this information. So I'm neither the pot nor the kettle.
Not even close to being the same thing.
Add your comment